78 THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE

as would warrant us in drawing the conclusion that it

necessarily postulates, short of annihilation, actual extension.

But in order to be able to affirm with certainty that the

extended the external world exists, it is by no means

necessary to know its intimate " nature," and the absolute

exhaustive truth about all or any of its qualities. " Qualities "

and " relations," as such, are, of course, mere abstractions,

though every one of them has a foundation in those real

things of which they are truly predicated.

The difficulties raised by Dr. Bradley are very largely

verbal ones, and result from the impossibility of our imagin-

ing what is beyond our sensuous experience, and from his

proneness to make use of exceedingly sensuous illustrations.

Appearance, he tells us,* must belong and yet cannot

belong to the extended.

But it is not evident that something extended may not

exist in our vicinity which our sensitive faculties may be

unable to perceive, so that it cannot appear to them ; and

it is certain that multitudes of extended bodies exist in

space (so to speak) which never can appear to any human

being. So much for the first alternative. As to the second,

" appearance " can and does belong to the extended, in so

far as it has objective qualities and powers which our

faculties are able to apprehend. The " appearance " is

partly objective and partly subjective, or rather it is in one

sense the former and in another sense the latter, just as we

have seen colour and sound are both objective and subjective.

That the extended comes to us " only by relation to an

organ," and is " perceived through an affection of our body

and never without," is another objection. But why should

we not apprehend extension through our organs, and what

doubt does such a means of apprehending it cast on the

truth of our apprehension? Why also should we doubt

as would warrant us in drawing the conclusion that it

necessarily postulates, short of annihilation, actual extension.

But in order to be able to affirm with certainty that the

extended the external world exists, it is by no means

necessary to know its intimate " nature," and the absolute

exhaustive truth about all or any of its qualities. " Qualities "

and " relations," as such, are, of course, mere abstractions,

though every one of them has a foundation in those real

things of which they are truly predicated.

The difficulties raised by Dr. Bradley are very largely

verbal ones, and result from the impossibility of our imagin-

ing what is beyond our sensuous experience, and from his

proneness to make use of exceedingly sensuous illustrations.

Appearance, he tells us,* must belong and yet cannot

belong to the extended.

But it is not evident that something extended may not

exist in our vicinity which our sensitive faculties may be

unable to perceive, so that it cannot appear to them ; and

it is certain that multitudes of extended bodies exist in

space (so to speak) which never can appear to any human

being. So much for the first alternative. As to the second,

" appearance " can and does belong to the extended, in so

far as it has objective qualities and powers which our

faculties are able to apprehend. The " appearance " is

partly objective and partly subjective, or rather it is in one

sense the former and in another sense the latter, just as we

have seen colour and sound are both objective and subjective.

That the extended comes to us " only by relation to an

organ," and is " perceived through an affection of our body

and never without," is another objection. But why should

we not apprehend extension through our organs, and what

doubt does such a means of apprehending it cast on the

truth of our apprehension? Why also should we doubt